# Should Cigar Rights of America be allied with pipe smokers and cigarette smokers....?



## vuttomundo

Im wondering if its a good idea for all the tobacco lovers (cigarette smokers, cigar smokers, pipe smokers, tobacco chewers, dippers, snus/snuff users, the people rolling their own cigarettes, and the people who grow their own tobacco) all joined CRA and worked together to stop the anti tobacco zealots from taking your rights away. 

Would it be good for them to join the fight or would that end up hurting the cause for premium cigars? It seems like part of the purpose of Cigar Rights of America was to distinguish cigars from cigarettes and other tobacco products by claiming it to be superior and different. Its like Cigars=good tobacco, fancy, luxurious. Every other form of tobacco=bad tobacco, low class, trash.


----------



## ghe-cl

My opinion: Premium cigars and pipes are different from other tobacco products. I wouldn't use your analogy, I'd just say they are different, primarily because premium cigars and pipes are means to enjoy tobacco rather than nicotine delivery systems, as are the other forms. On a practical basis, I think the cigarette war is lost. Those smoking "rights" are gone and they're not coming back. If cigars and pipes can be separated from other tobacco uses there's still a chance to carve out an acceptable exception for their use. As I said, this is all purely my opinion.


----------



## Tobias Lutz

Firstly, I think this should be in the Tobacco Legislation forum.
Secondly, if the CRA decides to align themselves with cigarette smokers and dippers, etc. then they become a hollow lobbying organization that abandons its singleness of purpose. I don't see how alliances with makers of different tobacco products really advances our cause. Hell, I can't say I give a flying hoot about cigarette smoker's rights (and I smoked for 18 years). The CRA is in the business of protecting the interests of cigar smokers. Everybody else can get their own damn organization.


----------



## DBragg

Im going to have to go against the majority here. The people who want to take your your ability to enjoy a smoke dont care whether your band says Kristoff, Camel, Montecristo, or Marlboro. To divide the resources is to cut off our nose to spite our face.

Let me make an analogy. My primary hobby, dirt bikes, has been under attack for a long time. There are some very aggressive groups that would like very much to shutout dirt bikes from all forests. ALL FORESTS. The Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club, and others have spent millions and millions (probably billions) of donated dollars to sue the Federal and State governments to lock out Off Highway Vehicles. They have enjoyed repeated success. Its cheaper for the govt to cave than it is to fight. For many years the mountain bike and equine communities looked down their noses on us... They felt they were different than us, and somehow special. Time has shown them to be wrong. While they dont suffer the scrutiny that OHV'ers do, some of their areas are being taken away by the same groups that attack the off highway crowd and the rate is increasing. They are starting the feel the heat from the groups to which a lot of them contribute money. Some of them are waking up. Some of them have joined the fight against over zealous environmentalists. The people that want us out of the forest dont care whether we are on dirt bikes, mountain bikes, 4x4's, or horses. They just want us out. The people that want to save you, and the people around you, dont care what kind of tobacco you use. Their goal is to make you stop.

Please do not take my comments as if I dont care about the environment. I love the outdoors. I love spending time in the woods. I cant think of any place I would rather spend my time. I am very deeply rooted in the philosophy of "dont [email protected] where you eat." Dont destroy the world around you. Some of the people and groups in the world have taken their causes way out of their own space. There has to be a balanced approach to the use of motor vehicles as well as the consumption of tobacco. Particularly when that behavior is not damaging to other people and the world around you.

[steps off soap box]


----------



## Cigars&GTRs

ghe said:


> they are different, primarily because premium cigars and pipes are means to enjoy tobacco rather than nicotine delivery systems, as are the other forms. If cigars and pipes can be separated from other tobacco uses there's still a chance to carve out an acceptable exception for their use.


This

If Cigar Rights of America were to align with the cigarette lobby it would be suicide. The only thing saving cigars is their differentiation from cigarettes.


----------



## paulb1970

I don't think aligning with cigarette smokers will hel;p AT ALL. This is coming from a former cigarette (10 yr on, now 13 yrs off) That very separation of the two is really the only "saving grace" we have right now.


----------



## Herf N Turf

ghe said:


> My opinion: Premium cigars and pipes are different from other tobacco products. I wouldn't use your analogy, I'd just say they are different, primarily because premium cigars and pipes are means to enjoy tobacco rather than nicotine delivery systems, as are the other forms. On a practical basis, I think the cigarette war is lost. Those smoking "rights" are gone and they're not coming back. If cigars and pipes can be separated from other tobacco uses there's still a chance to carve out an acceptable exception for their use. As I said, this is all purely my opinion.


:thumb:

Very well stated and changed my mind on the topic.


----------



## Emperor Zurg

Purely my opinion but...

One of the biggest things anyone can do to keep this 'hobby' alive is to be COURTEOUS and CONSIDERATE of others - particularly people who don't smoke OR just aren't smoking at the time. Take it for granted that if I'm not smoking, then I sure as hell do NOT want to be breathing YOUR smoke either. (... and I'm not even going to mention 'the children'...) I also don't want to be picking up your cigar butts that you've thrown around like an inconsiderate slob.

If you ask me, a huge reason cigarette smokers have lost so many rights is simply because of the inconsiderate assholery practiced by so many of them. (Not all - I know there are considerate cigarette smokers so don't go off on me ) How many times have you sat in a restaurant and gagged on someones cigarette smoke while you're trying to eat? How many times have you pulled onto a freeway off ramp and noticed the millions of cigarette butts littering the gutters? How many times have you seen some prick dump his ashtray right out the window in a gas station parking lot? Remember, it only takes one pissed-off zealot to get the legislative ball rolling and once it is, millions of others who are annoyed by the same thing hop on the bandwagon and the next thing you know, your rights are gone.

You may say "well it's my RIGHT to smoke in a restaurant!!" Correction: it WAS your right. More and more states have made all smoking in public buildings illegal now. Cramming your 'rights' in someones face will ultimately get your 'rights' taken away.

We should all by trying our best to be thoughtful and courteous of others, particularly the non-smoking others. (And this doesn't only go for smoking) That way (hopefully) when some damned zealot jumps on his soap box and starts railing against pipe and cigar smokers, there WON'T be anyone identifying with what he's braying; there WON'T be anyone to jump on the bandwagon. The rest of society will simply look at him and think 'WTF is he talking about? Cigar smokers don't bother me at all...'


----------



## Tobias Lutz

Emperor Zurg said:


> We should all by trying our best to be thoughtful and courteous of others, particularly the non-smoking others. (And this doesn't only go for smoking) That way (hopefully) when some damned zealot jumps on his soap box and starts railing against pipe and cigar smokers, there WON'T be anyone identifying with what he's braying; there WON'T be anyone to jump on the bandwagon. The rest of society will simply look at him and think 'WTF is he talking about? Cigar smokers don't bother me at all...'


:amen:

Preach Brother Zurg!!! :biggrin:


----------



## pippin925

ghe said:


> My opinion: Premium cigars and pipes are different from other tobacco products. I wouldn't use your analogy, I'd just say they are different, primarily because premium cigars and pipes are means to enjoy tobacco rather than nicotine delivery systems, as are the other forms. On a practical basis, I think the cigarette war is lost. Those smoking "rights" are gone and they're not coming back. If cigars and pipes can be separated from other tobacco uses there's still a chance to carve out an acceptable exception for their use. As I said, this is all purely my opinion.


Excellent point. The cigarette industry had at one time one of the strongest and most influential lobbies in America, but I feel they lost the fight when it came to light that additives were purposely added causing smokers to be addicted to cigarettes.

:anim_soapbox: I think it's also important to make the distinction of "rights" vs privileges. People are very quick to confuse what privileges they are afforded as their rights.

Our hobby is not a protected right, it's a privilege and IMHO the CRA works to protect our privileges that allow us to purchase and enjoy premium cigars. 
It's important to realize that privileges are easily taken away or limited. Cigar smokers are a small percentage of the voting population which makes us an easy target for politicians when they need to score some brownie points with the public.


----------



## Emperor Zurg

pippin925 said:


> :anim_soapbox: I think it's also important to make the distinction of "rights" vs privileges. People are very quick to confuse what privileges they are afforded as their rights.
> 
> Our hobby is not a protected right, it's a privilege and IMHO the CRA works to protect our privileges that allow us to purchase and enjoy premium cigars.
> It's important to realize that privileges are easily taken away or limited. Cigar smokers are a small percentage of the voting population which makes us an easy target for politicians when they need to score some brownie points with the public.


I'd have to disagree. This is a right.

In particular: exercising the use of a legal product in a legal way is my right. In general: living my life the way I want to - and not the way someone else wants me to - is, and ought to be my right. I don't need, and should not need, permission from the government to do it. However, with rights come responsibilities. If living my life the way I want interferes with your right to do the same, I ought to take it upon myself to limit my own actions so as not to encroach upon your domain. Too many these days are all about the RIGHTS and not at all about the responsibilities. 'Rights' minus 'Responsibility' equals 'Rights taken away'. The Founding Fathers of this country often spoke of this and predicted what would happen if people would refuse to self-regulate their actions. Their dire predictions are happening today.


----------



## pippin925

Emperor Zurg said:


> I'd have to disagree. This is a right.
> 
> In particular: exercising the use of a legal product in a legal way is my right. In general: living my life the way I want to - and not the way someone else wants me to - is, and ought to be my right. I don't need, and should not need, permission from the government to do it. However, with rights come responsibilities. If living my life the way I want interferes with your right to do the same, I ought to take it upon myself to limit my own actions so as not to encroach upon your domain. Too many these days are all about the RIGHTS and not at all about the responsibilities. 'Rights' minus 'Responsibility' equals 'Rights taken away'. The Founding Fathers of this country often spoke of this and predicted what would happen if people would refuse to self-regulate their actions. Their dire predictions are happening today.


Just to clarify, I agree with your message, but I was drawing the distinction between right and privilege. It's the privileges we have that can be taken away, a "right" cannot be taken without due process. We have the right to smoke/use tobacco in the comfort of our own residence; however, it is a privilege to be able to purchase cigars from a local tobacconist or an online vendor, it's a privilege to be able to enjoy a cigar on a public street while you take a walk, it is a privilege to be able to enjoy a cigar alone in a public park. Those privileges can be taken away through city/state/federal law.

Take prohibition as an example, alcohol was made illegal for purchase or sale. People during that time still had the right to consume alcohol; however, the privilege to purchase/sell alcohol was taken away through law.


----------



## DBragg

I see a lot of viewpoints that are very much in alignment with mine. I wholeheartedly agree that we should exercise courtesy to the people around us and use discretion in our activities. I do believe that cigars should be considered much safer and higher quality products. There certainly is more to this hobby than just nicotine delivery. 

What Im not seeing here is an acknowledgement of the opposition’s perspective on the matter. It’s the point that I was alluding to earlier. The opposition does not differentiate between cigars and cigarettes. I have visited several anti-tobacco websites and while most acknowledge cigars, its not in a positive light. It doesn’t matter if we think that we are different. Cigars and cigarettes are the same to the anti community. 

The opposition is not going to try us in the court of public opinion. The Regular Joe does not care about cigars. If cigar smoking gets banned, Regular Joe loses nothing. If we keep our tobacco taxes low and our freedom to smoke in public, Regular Joe gains nothing. Our opposition chooses the legislative and legal arenas to make their attack. I wish that we could pick the venue, but we don’t. The opposition sues the government to ban smoking in public places. They submit legislation to ban smoking outside at restaurants and in your private residences. Yes, they have tried to ban you from smoking cigars inside your own home. These suits and laws don’t exclude cigars, they never have and they never will. To provide an exemption for cigars would be to provide a proverbial “*****” in the armor of their goal. 

Their funds go to lobby congressmen, assemblymen, and other public officials. How much funding to we have to keep our ideas on the forefronts of those who write the legislation? I realize that most here are disgusted by lobbyists. To be honest so am I, but that is the arena that we have. This is the field of play that our society built. I don’t agree with it, but there is no other way to play the game if you want to win. 

When the tobacco lobby is totally gone, we will no longer be behind the eight ball, we WILL be the eight ball. There are so few of us that we cant provide the resources to protect ourselves in the legal and legislative arenas. We will be mowed over by the anti, subject to whatever tax and restriction that they choose to impose. 

I have not seen any anti-tobacco websites or other information that would suggest they will stop pursuing their goal after cigarettes are taxed into an unobtainable price point. I cant fint any literature that says that the anti movement thinks its ok to smoke cigars in public, but not cigarettes. If that information is out there, I would like to see it. 

Im new here, so maybe Im not fully educated on the matter. I can’t think of a single reason that we would be exempted from the same treatment as cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. What is the well defined and logical substantiation for the differentiation between cigars and cigarettes? We are the same to the anti-tobacco movement.


----------



## TCBSmokes

I agree with many of the opinions expressed here, but, excluding whether or not dirt bikes belong in the woods (sorry, man) I feel most closely aligned with that of DBragg. In actuality, cigarette-smokers have already lost, so as some here have said, maintaining separation is probably the best course of action. Other way of putting it, if they couldn't help themselves, how can they help us? And unfortunately, I don't think cigars, premium or otherwise, will escape the wrath of the legislative poison pens, because, like waves on the sea, there are just too many well-organized protestors coming from too many directions, whispering in the ears of government on a daily basis, that even CRA can't hold back them all. To wit, my recent thought has been, another way to do "battle" may not be to seek alignment with similarly maligned groups, but to insist on equal treatment of other socially objectionable pursuits, namely fast food franchises and especially manufacturers and purveyors of liquor. I mean, how many more citizens lives, including those of children, are imperiled by obesity-inducing fries and shakes, and how many more innocent by-standers have been killed by alcohol-induced motor vehicle operators? And where is the same outcry we hear against flavored cigars, (which I think those loop-hole seeking flavored cigar manufacturers are mostly responsible for inciting what has now led to this whole backlash against all cigars in general) against flavored liquor. Marshmallow vodka, really? Who is that geared toward? Or liquor-laced whipped cream? Again, who is the likely target? Why not just come out with tequila bubble gum next? Or is it out already. I wouldn't be surprised. Not that I think purveying these products are responsible acts either, shed in that light then they (fast foods and liquor) may fight for All our rights to freedom of choice. Before you think this a far-fetched idea, consider that, once the weaker players (cigars, snuff, etc.) are disabled, the stronger and more powerful ones (fast food and liquor) will be the next targets, and then with legal precedent to boot. And then, do you think they will stop there? Surely not. How much of a stretch is it to say that the internet is an indirect cause of obesity? It can go on and on, until all our liberties are dismantled, one by one. Which in closing (which by now I'm sure you're glad to hear), brings me to my favorite quote, which fits this thread, or at least my point, to a tee. He who appeases the crocodile is only the last to be eaten. w. churchill. Sorry for the long post, and thanks for listening. Btw, in case no strategy proves successful, start buying extra humidors, and fill them up while you still can. That's how I'm reasoning my latest binge of cigar-buying, anyway. Including three new humidors. TCB.


----------



## DBragg

@TCBSmokes I only used the motorcycle reference as an analogy. Its the same story, just different nouns


----------



## Tobias Lutz

TCBSmokes said:


> * How much of a stretch is it to say that the internet is an indirect cause of obesity?* It can go on and on, until all our liberties are dismantled, one by one.


It is a huge stretch. There has got to be a middle-ground where we acknowledge the desires of some to take away an individual's right to make piss-poor decisions, and yet don't extrapolate that kind of "good-intentioned" nannying as being a precursor to an Orwellian state.


----------



## Emperor Zurg

But what about 'the children'?


----------



## Cigars&GTRs

Lobbying exists to prevent the "tyranny of the majority", therefore it exists to protect people like cigar smokers from the majority of the population who are non-smokers, you should be happy it exists in this instance. 

Were you to acknowledge the perspective of the anti-tobacco lobby that cigars and cigarettes are one and the same then you give up the only leg you have left to stand on. What Cigar Rights of America should and likely is doing (I don't live in the US so I don't follow them very closely) is trying to debunk some of the claims of the anti-smoking lobby as non applicable to cigars to carve out exemptions for them to ensure you keep more of your rights than cigarette smokers. CRA are professional lobbyists, trust their judgement in this matter, if you want to help donate to them. 

It is good that they exist, we don't really have anything like that here in Canada so I am stuck drafting a letter to Toronto city council to address new by laws they are bringing forward but I will be one of the very few who does so.


----------



## TCBSmokes

Tobias Lutz said:


> It is a huge stretch. There has got to be a middle-ground where we acknowledge the desires of some to take away an individual's right to make piss-poor decisions, and yet don't extrapolate that kind of "good-intentioned" nannying as being a precursor to an Orwellian state.


Tobias. I agree and I meant the "anti's" might not see it as such a stretch, however. Rather than becoming a nanny state or as I like to say "bubble wrap" nation, why not stress involvement and supervision by parents, responsibility by merchants, and education for children on how and why to assess and/or avoid certain things, while still maintaining their Choice to do so in adulthood. Don't Do Drugs and Get Up and Move come to mind in that regard. And also accept the fact that temptations leading to questionable choices will always be out there and are a part of life. I mean, using cigars as an example, if they are legal, then keep them accessible too, don't just call them legal then tax them into oblivion. Whoops. Bad choice of words. Let's say, don't tax them into non-accessibility. I'm no expert on the framework of our Constitution, or the liberties that were intended, but internally there's something that just doesn't sit right regarding those two opposing actions. Thanks. TCB


----------



## Damselnotindistress

Well - as I've said before, I feel for the poor cigarette smokers. It's an addiction. They wouldn't go outside freezing in bad weather to feed their nicotine fit/craving. Trust me- I can't stand cigarette smoke. It makes me cough. But those who are smokers are still human beings with SOME rights. I really think in fairness and just plain empathy with the cigarette smokers, there should once again be locations inside buildings or at least covered foyers where THEY can smoke their c-sticks away from everybody else - but out of inclement weather elements and so on. That location can be well ventilated, smokers' candles or ashtrays, whatever. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Tobias Lutz

TCBSmokes said:


> . Rather than becoming a nanny state or as I like to say "bubble wrap" nation, why not stress involvement and supervision by parents, responsibility by merchants, and education for children on how and why to assess and/or avoid certain things, while still maintaining their Choice to do so in adulthood.


We actually seem to look at this in a very similar manner, so I'll point out what I have discovered to be the fallacy with your idea...the majority of people don't want to think for themselves, much less raise their children to. As a friend of mine likes to say, we live in an age where people see reacting emotionally as a substitute for thinking critically. People like to have parameters drawn for them, they like to have options taken "off the table", and they see the predictability of a life where many of their rights have been stripped as being more comfortable than the volatility of a life lived experimentally with the constant threat of consequence for poor decisions. Unfortunately they miss the fact that the laws they unconsciously gravitate towards are written with just as much opportunity for error as they demonstrate in their own decision making. Sure, there are those who stand up and say they would prefer to make their own choices, but the vocal majority is not the actually majority. So at the end of the day, their is nothing wrong with your proposals, aside from the fact that they will never come to fruition based on the behavior of the average American.


----------



## TCBSmokes

Tobias Lutz said:


> We actually seem to look at this in a very similar manner, so I'll point out what I have discovered to be the fallacy with your idea...the majority of people don't want to think for themselves, much less raise their children to. As a friend of mine likes to say, we live in an age where people see reacting emotionally as a substitute for thinking critically. People like to have parameters drawn for them, they like to have options taken "off the table", and they see the predictability of a life where many of their rights have been stripped as being more comfortable than the volatility of a life lived experimentally with the constant threat of consequence for poor decisions. Unfortunately they miss the fact that the laws they unconsciously gravitate towards are written with just as much opportunity for error as they demonstrate in their own decision making. Sure, there are those who stand up and say they would prefer to make their own choices, but the vocal majority is not the actually majority. So at the end of the day, their is nothing wrong with your proposals, aside from the fact that they will never come to fruition based on the behavior of the average American.


Tobias. Eloquently put, and I must admit I never thought the majority want to be directed as opposed to having choices, but sadly, perhaps that is so. Two nights ago, I smoked such a super-strong cigar, and it was a "mini" no less, that I still tasted it this morning. I commented to my wife about the experience, likening it to the first time I ever chewed tobacco. This took place in the mid-70's and it used to come in cellophane bricks the size of soap bars, and man was it strong. I also was only about 14 years old, chewing with braces yet, but I was sure I was gonna love it. Well, I didn't, but still suffered through a few of those bricks, dizziness and all, until the fad faded away. At around the same age, I had the same experience, and results, with buttermilk (it sure Sounds good), and crushed red pepper (because one of my favorite uncles liked both). I also tried cigarettes in college, Marlboro lights, but that soon faded, too. Did some binge drinking then too. Ok, a lot of binge drinking, but now I hardly touch the stuff. I suppose I am lucky not to have an "addictive" personality, or at least know how to control myself. But I also don't think I am any worse for wear for having tried those things. I asked my 91 yr old mom if she remembered the chewing tobacco phase. She said not really but said her philosophy had always been the consequences are usually worse when you forbid something than to let (not all but some) curiosities be satisfied. Now, I'm not saying 14 yr olds should be allowed to smoke cigars. These days a parent would likely be arrested for that, but at some point you do have to let adults find out for themselves and either succeed or fail. Because not all do fail. But you are right, it seems to me the trend today among many parents, particularly moms, want to sanitize the world for their children, rather than trust that their lessons in parenting will actually work, or that their kids have the intelligence or ability to learn from their own mistakes. I personally think it is easier to make wise choices in adulthood based on small mistakes you made at a younger age, than it is to test the waters with full freedom, no supervision, or any fear of having someone to answer to. But, thinking on it as a parent, today's world is not as innocent (yes, some would argue "ignorant")as 40 years ago, and allowing leeway even for what should be safe endeavors is a lot easier said than done. Thanks. TCB.


----------



## magoo6541

It's funny how like minded people tend to unintentionally gravitate toward each other. Or maybe certain activities tend to attract a certain type of person. Great posts Tobias and TCBSmokes.

Back to the topic, I feel that CRoA should certainly be allied with pipe smokers and I would add in cigarette smokers also. Smoking a pipe and smoking a cigar are essentially the same activity. You draw in smoke without inhaling for the purpose of tasting the smoke and then blowing it out. Nicotine is absorbed through the mouth and inevitably, some smoke gets inhaled. The cigarette smoker is obviously quite different but I feel all tobacco users are viewed in the same light and our goals should be the same.

I've been a part of other hobbies where one group refuses to side with another group and both groups fail. Another member mentioned earlier about the horseback riders not backing the motocross riders and both lost their privileges. From my prior perspective, I've watched firearm owners turn their backs on each other. I'm sure there's plenty of firearm enthusiasts here. I was quite involved and had a fairly extensive collection to include machine guns and silencers and the like. A lot of people in the firearm community could care less about those types of weapons. Many people in that hobby have their niche and only care about that. The shotgunners really only care about preserving their sport. The hunters only care about hunting. The list could go on and on and on.

The point that people miss though is all these anti-whatever groups will never actually be able to reach their ultimate goal because they set themselves up for failure from the very beginning. Generally, their ultimate goal is unachievable or so difficult that they instead choose easier targets in order to "do something". Doing something, or having the appearance of doing something is the most important thing. Even if it's the wrong thing and even if they know that that something won't solve any problems or will hurt others, at least they're doing something. So, we're told that we should compromise. You'll look like the stubborn one if you're not willing to come to a compromise so you must do something. In the case of firearms, the hunters and shotgunners don't care about sporting rifles so they say "Sure! We will back a sporting arm ban. It'll get the anti-gun people off our backs and make them happy." Sporting arms aren't the problem though so the issue can't be solved. It's compromise though and something must be done.

So, the anti-whatever people aren't happy because their charts show that banning that first thing didn't make a dent. So, they take it a step further. However that next step isn't the problem either. That doesn't matter, we need to "compromise". So we let another brick in the wall go in the name of appeasing people and look like we're part of the solution. 

In the end, in the name of "compromise" and appeasing people, we will give everything away so that we will be standing by ourselves with no one else standing behind us. All the pipe smokers, cigarette smokers, chewing tobacco users, vapers ect ect will say, "Gee. Where were they when the FDA came after our hobby?"


----------



## beercritic

The vast majority of cigarette smokers are addicts. The reverse is true for pipe and cigar smokers. These substances are very different, and should be recognized as such. I know the addiction quite well; I used to smoke those vile damnable cigarettes. Foul, smelly, and insanely addictive.


----------



## dinoa2

some good points raised by all. Just read an article from a Tampa newspaper which had comments from one of the Newmans of J.C. Newman about the upcoming regulations. It said that one possible exemption would be for "premium cigars" which they defined as those costing more than $10. This of course would mean at least half the cigars out there right now would be under their regulations. The story also had a link where you could post comments to the government about these regulations.

I went there and posted comments pointing out the difference between cigarettes and cigars and that cigars and the cigar market are not a danger to teens and young people as they are not part of the industry marketing projects and the absurdity of the $10 level.

Maybe the CRA should not work together with cigarettes lobbys but they are a lobby and working to protect cigar rights. This was the first time I had posted comments about these regulations and maybe if every cigar smoker sent comments, we would be in a good position but I doubt if everyone of us has posted our protest. At least the CRA is (hopefully) out there every day, lobbying to protect our future smokes.

So I would encourge everyone to send in comments to the FDA to protect us and the CRA efforts cant hurt us. My opinion is the cigarette industry will continue to be regulated but will never go out of business. It is too large and unemployment would be unbelevable. Efforts to eliminate the penny from currency dont calculate how many industries would be crippled if that happened.

My .02 worth


----------



## dinoa2

I seemed to have killed this thread at the start of the month so I will finish it near the end of the month. One of the on line cigar shops posted a request for people to send in their comments to the government about this regulation. they said that about 35,000 individuals had posted comments. this is pitiful. there must be more cigar smokers in the country. we need more people to send in their protests or pack up your humidors and save for those "premium" cigars and dream about the old days. PEOPLE need to send in comments


----------



## FNA

I see this argument all the time - they're addicts, we're connoiseurs.

We don't want those 42 million voters on our side.

4x as many adult males smoke cigarettes as smoke cigars.

Go ahead, scorn them.


----------



## Tobias Lutz

FNA said:


> I see this argument all the time - they're addicts, we're connoiseurs.
> 
> We don't want those 42 million voters on our side.
> 
> 4x as many adult males smoke cigarettes as smoke cigars.
> 
> Go ahead, scorn them.


I don't necessarily scorn them because I used to be one (15+ years), but I do delineate between cigarette smokers and cigar smokers because I believe the overall health related costs that must be absorbed by the economy are astronomically lower for the average cigar smoker than for the average cigarette smoker. For that reason alone I don't support the idea of combine the two lobbying groups.


----------



## Herf N Turf

20-30 years ago, my answer would have been a lot different. However, today, it seems to me that cigarettes have been allowed to become so vilified as to be completely untenable as a political position. Cigarette smokers, through their own inaction, have been marginalized to second-class citizens. We have effectively and literally forced them into the shadows. Where I work is the perfect example. People go downstairs and hide in the corners of the parking garage to have a smoke. They look just like heroin addicts. We've (as a nation) labeled them as murderers, having associated second hand smoke with killing people.

Cigars aren't far behind. The anti's, as has been stated, do not differentiate between tobacco vehicles and that's where CRA come in. Drawing - all be they unfortunate - lines of distinction between the "premium" product and the proletariat, is likely to be the only reasonable route.

Part of the trouble, as I see it, is analogous to what's happening in the transportation industry. USDOT and FDA are the same ilk, just governing different entities. Regulations are being made at USDOT by people who have never seen the inside of a truck, let alone driven one for a living. Likewise, how many people at FDA do you think enjoy a pipe, or cigar?

Smoking, drinking, shooting dope, overeating, etc., are all, or were at one time, protected by the Constitution, under the heading of "individual liberty". The Framers had this cockamamie notion that individuals possessed the ability to make intelligent decisions about their lives, liberties and individual pursuits of "happiness" and that they were defined BY the individual, NOT the state. The trouble begins when some other individual declares to possess some evidence that what you're doing affects them. Second-hand smoke, being the prime example. Conversely, I fail to understand how shooting heroin affects a soccer mom, or drinking alcohol affects a sober person. I'm not advocating the use of heroin, just your right to do so. I personally don't like being told to wear a seat belt, or motorcycle helmet, although it's my choice to do so.

I also wonder if "infiltration", toward the goal of education, perhaps should be among our strategy? Participation, certainly not up to the inclusion of donation, in order to educate the anti-tobacco lobby on the distinct differences in the experience and effects, both upon the user, as well as the bystander, need to be disseminated and it's the anti-tobacco crowd who we need most to make those distinctions.

One of the most dangerous elements I see in this current, "age of entitlement", is the sense of entitlement to tell others what they may and may not DO.


----------



## Emperor Zurg

Herf N Turf said:


> Smoking, drinking, shooting dope, overeating, etc., are all, or were at one time, protected by the Constitution, under the heading of "individual liberty". The Framers had this cockamamie notion that individuals possessed the ability to make intelligent decisions about their lives, liberties and individual pursuits of "happiness" and that they were defined BY the individual, NOT the state. The trouble begins when some other individual declares to possess some evidence that what you're doing affects them. Second-hand smoke, being the prime example. Conversely, I fail to understand how shooting heroin affects a soccer mom, or drinking alcohol affects a sober person. I'm not advocating the use of heroin, just your right to do so. I personally don't like being told to wear a seat belt, or motorcycle helmet, although it's my choice to do so.
> 
> -Snip-
> 
> One of the most dangerous elements I see in this current, "age of entitlement", is the sense of entitlement to tell others what they may and may not DO.


Here is the problem as I see it.

First, we've got your basic assholery - much of it on the part of cigarette smokers. This is not to say that all or even most cigarette smokers are assholes so don't jump on my shyt for implying that because I'm not implying it. But how many times have you seen a cigarette smoker empty his ash tray right on the ground at a gas station or e-way off ramp? Cigarette butts are EVERYWHERE. That is bound to sit poorly with many people. How may times have you been in a restaurant (before smoking in public buildings became illegal practically everywhere) where someone fired up a cigarette a couple tables over just as your meal landed at your table. I don't mind the smell of tobacco smoke in some settings but I sure don't want to attempt to enjoy my $30~$60 meal while choking on someone's second hand smoke. I don't see it as so much of a health problem but it's damn annoying because let's face it, it reeks.

The second problem (again, as I see it) is this 'age of entitlement' with the addition of the 'age of the nanny state'. It seems so many are willing to turn to the state for their own personal needs these days. In fact it's just assumed the State will care for you. For years we've had WIC, Food Stamps, Unemployment, etc etc etc... welfare programs pouring out of every orifice of Uncle Sam with the goal of putting everyone, everywhere on some kind of Government handout. Now we've got the grand daddy of them all; public healthcare. Well, you know what? That shit all costs money. Big money. And it costs more to maintain the health of heavy smokers than it does to do the same for non smokers. (Do REALLY think the government is going to differentiate 1 smoker from another?) It costs money to support a heroin junkie who can't or won't find work because he's fried his brain. It costs money to piece together a guy who wasn't wearing a motorcycle helmet. So since we've basically, as a nation, made the government our mommy, our mommy now thinks it has the right to tell us what to do. Or at the risk of offending some, we've become slaves and the government is our master. Master is now going to have to take care of his little slave who is a quadriplegic because he wasn't wearing a helmet. All this wasn't by force, we've basically sold our freedom for handouts. Tobacco use is just the tip of the iceberg too. It's not healthy to be fat either and a huge number of Americans are overweight. Wait till Uncle Sam starts dictating your caloric intake and taking away your bacon. Will you put up a fuss? Maybe... but probably not.


----------



## dinoa2

All good points fellows but at this point, I don't care if cigarette smokers help us save cigars. The CRA can do a good job but I was shocked by the news from the internet smoke shop about only 35,000 individuals making comments. I don't know if their figures are correct but how many puff members have sent in comments. I think ( maybe wrong) that the government might be more moved if they say comments from real people out there who oppose their actions. If all members here have sent in comments, I say good show. If not, I say, find that web site and send in your comments.


----------



## Herf N Turf

Gents, I went back and re-read my post and then read his Galactic Highness' remarks. Since he's basically responding to my prompt, he gets a pass. I, however, do not. My post is clearly over the top and tippie toes way too perilously close to the rules. I therefore apologize to the group.

Please, don't go down the rabbit hole I jumped into. Let's keep the political stuff at bay and try to focus on the OP and topic of rescuing our rights from danger.


----------

